Tag: Saudi Arabia
Quit and change course before you lose
A cold-eyed look at the Gaza war is overdue.
During the atrocious October 7 attack on Israel, Hamas killed as many as 1200 civilians, kidnapped over 200, raped an unknown number, and and committed crimes against humanity.
The Hamas attack did not however threaten the existence of the Israeli state, which struck back quickly. The attack was “existential” in the imagination of some Israelis as well as some Palestinians, but not in its real consequences.
The Israeli attack on Gaza has killed upwards of 23,000 Palestinians, 15,000 or so of them civilians and most presumably women and children. Israel has detained thousands and destroyed about half the built structures in Gaza. The International Criminal Court will decide whether Israeli conduct constitutes genocide.
Israel hasn’t lost, but it hasn’t reached its objectives either
The outcome thus far is obviously not to Israel’s advantage. The Israeli attack aimed to destroy Hamas, which Israel had previously helped to finance and sustain, as a military and governing entity. Israel has also aimed to free the hostages. It has so far fallen short of both goals. Hamas has gained support both in Gaza and the West Bank. Nor have the Israelis achieved their secondary objective of releasing the hostages, upwards of 140 of whom remain in captivity.
It will not be easy for Israel to change course. Prime Minister Netanyahu can remain in power only if the war continues. He is resisting international pressure, including from President Biden, to desist. The end of the war will open a political process certain to hold him responsible for the intelligence and military failures that allowed the Hamas attack to be successful.
Other options
A growing number of Israelis favors prioritizing hostage release over destroying Hamas. This could only be achieved in a negotiated exchange with Hamas (and possibly other Palestinian factions in Gaza) for Palestinians detained in Israel. There is no guarantee however that Hamas can or will deliver all the hostages. Nor do the Israelis want to release all their imprisoned Palestinians, at least some of whom are responsible for killing Israeli Jews.
There is little apparent support in Israel for the course President Biden is proposing. He wants steps towards a Palestinian state that would sweeten the deal for the Palestinian Authority. A reformed PA would take over governing Gaza. Biden believes that would incentivize the Arab Gulf monarchies to finance post-war stabilization and reconstration. It would also allow progress on normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Israelis and Arabs who would support that course are well-intentioned but relatively few.
Some Israelis want to de-populate Gaza as well as the West Bank, claiming both as Israeli territory. This course would be sure to create a permanent threat to Israeli security in Egyptian Sinai. It would also destabilize Jordan, which would have to receive many of the West Bank Palestinians. Jordan’s pro-Western monarchy is vital to Israeli security. Any alternative would likely be far more radical and supportive of the Palestinians, who already constitute more than 50% of Jordan’s population. So forced displacement would be entirely counter-productive. That however doesn’t mean the Israelis won’t try to do it. The settlers and security forces are pressuring some West Banker Palestinians to leave.
What’s most likely?
At some point, the Israelis are likely to accept a ceasefire and try to negotiate a hostage deal. Two questions arise. Will they do so before the destruction in Gaza becomes unfixable? Will Hamas release the hostages and risk Israel re-starting the war thereafter?
Leverage in a negotiation comes from having an alternative to a negotiated solution. The alternative for Israel is to pursue Hamasees it regards as responsible for October 7 by other than conventional military means. Israel could conduct a campaign of targeted air strikes and assassinations. That is not a bad alternative. Doing it soon would maximize the odds of Gulf financing for PA takeover, stabilization, and reconstruction in Gaza.
The alternative for Hamas is to fight on, risking a war of attrition that it might not be able to sustain even if it does serious damage to Israel and PA credibility. Hamas will try to retain at least the Israeli soldiers it has captured, but getting rid of the civilians would increase sustainability. Keeping pregnant women and children captive and alive is not what most fighters want to be doing.
Bottom line
Both Israel and Hamas need to think about quitting and changing course before they lose. The sooner they do it the better. I’d prefer Biden’s two-state option, but the prisoner exchange is the more likely first step. It will be a difficult negotation and likely an incomplete exchange initially. But if it comes with a ceasefire and enhanced humanitarian relief for Gaza’s civilians, it would be a good thing. Certainly better than mass displacement.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Has the sunset of the West begun?
Pantelis Ikonomou writes:
After the collapse of then existing socialism in 1991, the clash of ideologies seemed finished. Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History” became a bestseller.
It did not take long for him to admit the error of his prophecy. At the same time, humanity was realizing that hopes for global peace were false. History continued to flow, yet more violently and at higher human costs.
The US is to blame
The undeniable protagonist of the new hot war era was the winner of the 45-year Cold War: the American-led democratic West. The Warsaw Pact dissolved, but NATO continued to exist and to progressively encircle Russia, the collapsed adversary.
The US, with or without NATO, led a series of wars that go on to this day: the Gulf War (1991), the devastating bombardments of Yugoslavia (1995 and 1999), the military interventions in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2014) and the latest, indirect but decisive US involvement in Ukraine (2022) and the slaughter in Gaza (2023).
Human values and democratic principles are not the driving force of this on-going violence. It is the superpower’s eternal greed to achieve and maintain global hegemony.
What’s next?
In periods of crises, political change is critical. Is there a basis for hope?
Although history’s next games remain unknown, we will get to know one of them relatively soon. Recent polls in the US sugest that the presidential election next November will likely get Donald Trump, or a Republican politician with similar views, back on the top of the global American superpower.
The entire world, including the European democratic West, should not forget ex-President Trump’s unorthodox, unpredictable, and thus perilous persona.
Flash back
In 2016, president-elect Trump announced his doctrine for world order: “America First”. Its main pillar was the dissolution of the EU. He strongly urged European countries to follow the example of Brexit.
The head of the Munich Security Conference, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, called this “a non-military declaration of war.” The response of the then President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, was characteristic: “Europe is threatened from all sides, including the USA.” Then German Chancellor Angela Merkel wondered whether “we will be able to cooperate with the US in the future or will we retreat into parochial policies.” At the same time, she underlined the importance of international multilateral institutions, such as the EU and the UN, which Trump defiantly discredited.
Trump also encouraged US allies Japan and South Korea, and indirectly Saudi Arabia, to acquire nuclear weapons. This violated American obligations, as well as the binding commitments of the countries in question to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Trump publicly described NATO as “obsolete.” He even proposed a retreat to bilateral agreements, a proposition Russia would support.
Hence, there are well-founded doubts worldwide about the future posture of the US in defending the security, principles, and interests of the democratic West as well as abiding by historic alliances and international treaties.
Is the West at a geopolitical turning point? Has the sunset begun?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, October 8
I’m late with this as I was traveling yesteday, but still good:
– Clearly an intelligence failure by Israelis
– Failure of a policy to link Saudi Arabia and Israel
-Failure by Netanyahu, Haaretz argues
– Failure requiring new policies
– WaPo reports fear and shock
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 30
Extra! By 335-91, the House passed a relatively “clean” Continuing Resolution to continue government funding for 45 days. The Senate seems likely to approve in a vote Saturday evening. Even that “clean CR” is 71 pages long.
I failed to post this edition yesterday:
It’s New Year’s Eve FY2024 and a lapse in appropriations is likely. Vox has a good list of the contending factions. Politico notes the additional FAA problem.
– Sarah Binder explains how the motion to vacate [fire the Speaker] could play out.
– My friend Derek Chollet faced a tough nomination hearing.
– Reuters reports on possible US-Saudi-Israeli deal.
-NYT says UAE has been intervening in Sudan.
– Joe Cirincione disputes smear of Americans involved in Iran negotiations
– New Yorker examines the fall of Nagorno-Karabakh
– Law prof analyzes new DOD Law of War manual
– Economist reminds us of the value of hand-writing
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cold comfort is better than none at all
“Above all,” he says (at 18:49), “Iran must face a credible nuclear threat.” This is Prime Minister Netanyahu implicitly acknowledging, whether intentionally or not, Israel’s own nuclear weapons and stating against whom they are targeted. At the same time, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is making it clear that he intends to match Iran’s nuclear capabilities:
Turkish President Erdogan has made a similar pledge.
This raises the disturbing question: are we at the brink of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? I had a look at this question last spring with two Middle East Institute interns. Our conclusion then was that the situation needs monitoring. I can say a bit more now.
Can a Saudi nuclear capability be blocked?
While it is rarely mentioned in public, an amped-up Saudi non-proliferation commitment is likely a key part of the Biden Administration’s current negotiations with Riyadh for a bilateral security agreement. That wouldn’t be a popular proposition on its own in the U.S. Congress. But if it comes with a Saudi commitment not to develop sensitive nuclear technology (especially enrichment, reprocessing, and weaponization), it might be more attractive on both sides of the aisle. American security relations with both Japan and South Korea, on which the press reports the Administration is modeling a possible agreement with the Kingdom, include de facto commitments not to develop nuclear weapons. West Germany’s entry into NATO included such a commitment as well.
But the US/Saudi negotiations aim primarily at formal normalization of Saudi relations with Israel, for which in exchange the Saudis want concessions to the Palestinians. The Crown Prince is sounding soft on that score. He wants improvement in the life of the Palestinians. Netanyahu is not going to find it easy to get his ultra-nationalist coalition partners to offer even that. Nor is it clear he wants to. A substantial non-proliferation commitment from Saudi Arabia could however sweeten the deal from Netanyahu’s perspective. He won’t want some future, less friendly, Crown Prince to wield nukes.
The Saudis have indicated they intend to upgrade their non-proliferation safeguards agreement with the IAEA. That is a good step in the right direction, but it falls short of the strictest arrangement known as an Additional Protocol. That is where the U.S. should want the Kingdom to arrive.
What about Turkey?
Erdogan already has American nuclear weapons in Turkey. Were he to push for Turkey’s own nukes, those might be withdrawn, as they really don’t serve much military purpose. But Ankara is taking risks these days in many directions, exercising its right to a far more independent foreign policy than in the past:
- Participation with Iran and Russia in managing the conflict in Syria.
- Purchase of Russian air defenses, even if now mothballed due to the American reaction.
- Mediation of the grain deal between Russia and Ukraine.
- Opposition to Finland’s and (still) to Sweden’s membership in NATO.
- Support for Azerbaijan’s military operation to take back Nagorno-Karabakh.
It would not be surprising if Erdogan concluded that nuclear weapons would be an appropriate bulwark for this more independent course.
Could Egypt be far behind?
Likely yes, as things stand today. President Sisi has stated that he wants Egypt to be like Germany: a great power without nuclear weapons. Neither Egypt’s economy nor its army are currently in a position to resist American and Israeli pressure against Egypt acquiring nuclear weapons. But if Riyadh and Ankara were to get them, Cairo would want to follow suit. When would then be the question.
Iran sets the pace, but might stop short
Israel’s nuclear weapons, which have existed for more than 50 years, did not ignite an arms race. Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which have been advancing rapidly, could well do so. Israel kept its nuclear program behind a (sometimes thin) veil of secrecy. Iran is unable to hide its progress, as even hindered IAEA inspections provide a good deal of transparency. If Tehran decides to build a nuclear weapons, the world is going to know it, sooner rather than later. Ignoring that development would be difficult for both Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In the Middle East, Iran is the nuclear pace setter.
But Tehran might stop short of full weaponization. Its own national security is the reason. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the slightest doubt in Israel about whether a missile is being prepared for launch with a nuclear warhead could lead to Armageddon. It would be far wiser for Tehran to make it clear that it has stopped short of weaponization. Being a few weeks from becoming a nuclear power would give Iran most of the benefits of becoming one without all of the risks.
That is cold comfort. But cold comfort is better than none at all.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 22
– To try to avoid a government shutdown, Sen. Schumer plans to take up the FAA re-authorization passed by the House as a vehicle for a CR to fund the government. Using a bill with an HR number avoids any blue slip problems because revenue measures must begin in the House and makes the question in the House whether to accept a Senate version.
– CRS has some good background pieces on how the USG functions in a lapse of appropriations. Some FAQs and some broader background.
– Academics at the old Monkey Cage site have launched a new site, Good Authority.
– Among their good first articles are: Sarah Binder on the Tuberville holds; Andrew Rudalevige on the Schedule F problems; and Michael Tesler on GOP isolationism.
– In 2016 candidate Donald Trump didn’t run a typical campaign, just media. LATimes notes this year his campaign has done the nitty gritty work to get delegates, and it’s working.
– This week I ran across an article from last March profiling Trump’s last, acting SecDef, Chris Miller. While it’s mildly sympathetic, I stand by my low opinion of his performance and his views.
I somehow missed yesterday’s edition:
– Unclear what happens next after confirming 3 Chiefs.
– Same with the budget, though House may use King of he Hill amendment process.
– GOP group opposes Ukraine aid. Here’s their letter.
– GOP also divided over expiring PEPFAR
– FT says India spy agency operates abroad
– WSJ says US wants Israel to support nuclear program for Saudi
– Atlantic has long article on Gen. Milley
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
